Manager Likeability and Its Impact on Leadership Success

Introduction: Likeability and Leadership Performance

The likeability of a manager will determine how effective they are on transactionally oriented tasks while also serving as an accurate predictor of how effective they will be in more transformational roles within an organization. The intent of this analysis is to define likeability from a leadership standpoint, illustrating how this aspect of a leader's personality must be authentic, transparent in approach, and genuine in how a leader earns and keeps the trust of subordinates, peers, and superiors. A likeable person is by definition one known for friendliness or the ability to create an ongoing dialogue that includes a significant level of self-disclosure and the ability to communicate with accuracy, clarity, and honesty (George, 1995). A likeable leader is one who combines friendliness, relevance of communication to others, and empathy — the capacity to feel what others are feeling and to articulate those emotions — all unified by a very strong level of authenticity, integrity, and genuineness (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002).

All of these factors together define a likeable person. When combined with a leader's willingness to self-sacrifice, create roles in an organization that capitalize on the unique strengths of associates, and remain consistent in those roles, a strong foundation of transformational leadership begins to emerge. One of the key findings of this study is that the extent to which a manager is able to create and sustain a high level of trust with subordinates is the extent to which they are also able to sustain transformational leadership within a team. While leaders have varying levels and depths of skills that contribute to their transformational capacity, those with demonstrated high levels of emotional intelligence (EI) combined with the four foundational aspects of transformational leadership consistently exhibit a higher level of likeability than their more transactionally oriented counterparts (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002). In evaluating whether likeability leads to greater leadership performance, a proposed Model of Likeability and Organizational Transformation has been created and is presented in this analysis.

The existing body of research indicates that likeability is one of the foundational elements of effective transformational leadership, yet it does not exist in isolation. The accumulated research completed for this study indicates that a leader's likeability is highly correlated with their level of EI. The dimensions of EI have a direct, predictive effect on how likeable and effective a leader will be. Another finding from this analysis is that likeability by itself does not guarantee a leader will be effective; only the ability to translate EI-based skills in conjunction with a very strong foundation of transformational skills enables leaders to accomplish challenging goals and propel an organization toward fulfilling its shared vision.

This study also concludes that likeability is not essential for success either, as numerous examples of leaders and CEOs renowned for being very difficult to work with have propelled their organizations to leadership positions in their industries. Larry Ellison of Oracle, known for being exceptionally demanding and for creating a culture of mistrust and intense internal competition, is not likeable according to the dimensions examined in this study. He is, however, exceptionally effective in driving his organization to attain its vision and mission. What this study has found is that when the triad of Emotional Intelligence (EI), trust, and transformational leadership are combined, leaders increase their propensity for being liked. These three factors combined also provide leaders with a solid foundation for effectiveness in their roles. Likeability does not assure results, however. Figure 1, Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability, shows how these three factors must be balanced and proportional in a leader's management style to be effective. Deficiencies in EI, for example, could lead to a very collegial work environment, yet the leader would not know how and when to define tasks and key strategies to accomplish objectives over time. All three must be balanced in order for a catalyst of continued progress to form and stabilize within an organization.

Figure 1: Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability in Leaders
Based on analysis of the following sources: (Gardner, 1983; Izard, 1991; Sanders, 2006)

Likeability, Leadership, and the Pursuit of Results

In completing the literature review and background analysis of likeability and its implications for managerial and leadership effectiveness, a recurring trend emerged. Likeability in and of itself, even when an organization has an exceptionally compelling vision, does not deliver results. By being likeable and maintaining a strong level of authenticity, transparency, and trust, a transformational leader will have the ability to motivate their teams to significant levels of accomplishment (Sanders, 2006). Yet a paradox emerged from the analysis: without a strong foundation of knowledge regarding how to correctly interpret the specific cultural, psychological, and sociological cues of subordinates, peers, and superiors, even the most transformative leader would not achieve challenging goals — much less the overarching vision of the enterprise.

This paradox of leadership, as shown in the literature review and subsequent analysis, requires a strong foundation of EI to correctly interpret and respond to situations occurring in real time throughout an enterprise. The ability of any leader to correctly interpret and respond to a given situation — whether it be a risk or an opportunity — must be consistent and transparent in order for trust to be continually maintained and strengthened over time. EI acts as the gyroscope in Figure 1, keeping the entire learning ecosystem functioning correctly. EI is also how leaders earn and keep trust over time, with a focus on how best to create transparency of direction and motives. All three components are balanced in leaders who demonstrate high levels of reliability and performance. It takes an insightful and self-aware leader to seek to balance these factors using EI skills they continually develop (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000).

This study also shows that EI levels are not necessarily innate. Managers have the ability to become transformational by shifting their approach across the four dimensions of transformational leadership: individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Studies have shown that managers who continually invest in training and seek out opportunities to strengthen these four areas can, over time, achieve greater transformationally based success than short-term approaches to leadership allow. Having a more transformationally oriented approach also helps create higher levels of trust, thereby increasing likeability.

As Figure 1 shows, these factors combine to create an ecosystem that fuels likeability and the ability to accomplish challenging tasks. Likeability, while an aspiration of many managers and leaders alike, is most useful when relied upon for creating a highly focused, galvanized team that seeks to attain higher levels of performance over time (Goleman, 1995). The greatest leaders have an innate sense of how and when to bring the four elements of transformational leadership to bear on a given situation and ensure the attainment of goals in the short-term while advancing the company's vision in the long-term (Goleman, 1995). This ability to sense what to do and how to do it with their teams — while also keeping teams balanced and motivated through individualized attention — forms the foundation of likeability as an attribute of effective, productive leaders.

References

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 3–33). JAI Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. xvii–xxiii). JAI Press.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 989–1015.

Gabriel, Y., & Griffiths, D. S. (2002). Emotion, learning and organizing. The Learning Organization, 9(5), 214–221.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(2), 68–78.

George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 778–794.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–107). Academic Press.

Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. Plenum Press.

Kawasaki, G. (2012). Ten steps to enchanting your employees. Leader to Leader, 2012(65), 33.

Leeper, R. W. (1948). A motivational theory of emotions to replace "emotions as disorganized response." Psychological Review, 55, 5–21.

Macaleer, W., & Shannon, J. (2002). Emotional intelligence: How does it affect leadership? Employment Relations Today, 29(3), 71–82.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. MIT Press.

Rafaeli, A., & Worline, M. (2001). Individual emotion in work organizations. Social Science Information, 40(1), 95–123.

Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional competence: How emotions and relationships become integrated. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 36. University of Nebraska Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.

Sanders, T. (2006). The likeability factor. Random House.

Schaffer, L. F., Gilmer, B., & Schoen, M. (1940). Psychology. Harper & Brothers.

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Simon, H. A. (1982). Comments. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition (pp. 333–342). Erlbaum.

Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 89–92.

Young, P. T. (1936). Motivation of behavior. John Wiley & Sons.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.